A certain provision in the Constitution of the Country, to practice a profession that one is interested, enshrined in the fundamental rights, and a liberal ecosystem that existed in the past decade or so, saw several education entrepreneurs, set up technical, management, pharmacy and architecture-based institutions. Their belief that there was a revenue model, their passion to genuinely contribute to education, greed in a few of them to grow in the eyes of the society or make a fast buck so to say, all contributed to an expanding education market. The genuine ones among them did spend considerable amount of money and effort improving the systems, even as they were acknowledging the onslaught of competition with the established players. Some of them did find the going tough.
An entrepreneur invests money in education, if he sees an opportunity to raise his stock among peers, or has political ambitions that he believes would be enhanced, if the society were to see him as an educationist, or has genuine concern for education and its value in shaping lives of children in his village, town or city, or is convinced that he can bring about a change in the society, or believes that this would be a means to earn wealth for him and his family. He would obviously invest his land and money to do so. A regulator would probably have no choice except to extend approval, if he meets regulatory compliances as are required. Any regulatory overbearing would have pushed both the regulator and the regulated to the Courts. The only way his hospices could have been stopped from seeing the light would have been to approach the Court armed with a regulation, supported by the State cabinet approved perspective plans that exactly listed, with sound reasoning, as to which institutions were required, where and how many. The absence of such state compliances and an absence of a Labour Management Information System (LMIS), saw an expansion that was purely based on perceptions.
In recent times, job opportunities have plummeted with the onslaught of Automation, Artificial intelligence, intelligent agents, a highly specialised industry 4.0, changing business processes, and changing economic fortunes. A constantly evolving teaching, learning pedagogies and lack of experiential learning added to the woes. Further, higher order specialised skills are being valued in a shrinking job market.
Disruptive innovations in a start-up context, challenge the established players in their own backyard, and help create market spaces which may initially be smaller in size, but prove to be revolutionary, taking away considerable market share from established firms. Inability to operate in volatile market spaces, further push the established ones to a corner. In the education sector, this theory seems not to be working. The bigger players seem to be boxing out the smaller players though they are also needed for addressing the equity concerns.
The Deemed, Deemed to be and the Private varsities, established in the early eighties, now effectively out of the regulatory frameworks, due to a surfeit of judgements in their favour, were innovating, in a way disrupting, with new learning models, new delivery models, and new financial models. The landscape of education, that was proving difficult for the smaller players to keep pace with, were further shackled, with a host of regulatory compliances, that they had to adhere to. The result was that the bigger players went on an expansion spree, adding new courses, new disciplines, and new programs and massively multiplying on numbers rendering many smaller institutions in the neighbourhood redundant.
Education market needs certain number of fee paying students to break even, Once the threshold is reached, additional students bring in so called profits, sometimes used in further development and expansion or sometimes siphoned off to other entities. Perhaps the markets consolidate in this process. Rural institutions were hit the hardest in a virtual mayhem that was unleashed by the bigger players. Unfilled seats, lesser fee collections, inability to attract faculty, both in numbers and quality saw them go downhill. Students and parents migrating to cities for better opportunities, was the first nail in the proverbial coffin.
In a disruptive market, innovations are not always made to protect the weak or feeble. They are in fact made to protect a few who could afford the change. Rather situations are created to suit the innovators. A disruption that is worrisome is an increasing trend of some institutions making complaints against their brethren that are either fictitious, or even genuine, a few months before the admission season begins. Any complaint if verified, has to be taken cognisance of. An inspection that is based on metrics and rules is bound to throw incongruities, even in the best of the places. An inspector would have to report and a penalty levied, sometimes resulting even in closure. The damage would leave the institute bruised, and result in fewer admissions, and may even render it sick. In the meantime, the admission season would pass with the beneficiaries revelling in a job well done.
With all the above uncertainties preying on the minds, it is only natural that the same education entrepreneurs now actively seek a way out of keeping the institutions afloat or shut them for good. The job markets would certainly improve in time. There would certainly be a flocking to technical Institutions in times to come. The GER of 22 needs to be raised at least to 35 in the next five years in the Country’s journey of development. Of course, all this will not happen with technical education alone. But it is an important peg. Institutions cannot be started and closed at will. A whole lot of background work, a lot of effort, good educationists, and a lot of money and passion is required to set up one. Nurtured even more passionately to be there. How prudent is it to close them? Perhaps a helping hand in keeping them afloat would serve a rainy day, in the country’s glorious history of education.
If we were to look at a 180-degree twist to this proposition. Quality builds out of quantity is being amply proved now. The poorer ones are closing for want of students. Had they not been there, what was the benchmark for quality? Many Institutions that were better off closed, would have continued in the absence of a comparison. A case in point is today’s realisation that several institutions in the Government sector need improvement in quality, a realisation that dawned only when institutions and universities in the private sector started posing a challenge. A collateral that accrued was almost nil capitations and donations, unlike medical education where it is so large that merit sometimes is redundant.
Mandatory internships, modified industry relevant curriculum, student engagements like hackathons are all important and much needed interventions. Scaling any good initiative in the country is always a challenge. The new education paradigm must reinvent itself and using technology to define technology must be the maxim. It is important to first understand the market and then decide what will appeal most to students and the industry. It is only then, that bigger, calculated risks work. Such innovations may start out being attractive only to a small group of customers. But with time, such market spaces lead to greater market shifts. These may cause leading institutions to fail and consequently work on more quality initiatives, as new endeavours try to displace them. We need this constant challenge that challenges both small and big and also support each other. We don’t need one at the expense of the other. It would be interesting to learn from Elon Musk, who balances opportunities and risks, and is known for his disruptive strategies. Education too, may do well with the use predictive analysis in times to come.